Apr 20, 2020. Updated: Jun 2, 2022.

Arguments

Arguments should lead us to truth, and if truth seems far away, they should lead us closer to truth. Arguments should not be about winning, but should be about the edification of the subject and finding the truth.

Arguments on truth should be substantiated with proofs or supported by rationale. Proofs or evidences, are those that can be perceived by our senses or by instruments that either replace or extend our senses. What we see, hear, smell, taste or feel can help us to deduce something as existing or non-existing. However, both our senses and the instruments have limitations. Therefore, proofs of existence that has been established so far, either through our senses or through such instruments, are a subset of a larger set of proofs of existences yet to be discovered.

Therefore, one cannot claim non-existence simply because there is no proof of existence. If an existence cannot be proven, the non-existence is not implied; nor does the existence cease to exist, nor does it mean to exist; but remains a something to be proved or disproved. To prove non-existence, the non-existence must be proven and to prove existence, the existence must be proven. Evidences are not inventions, but discoveries of truth.

For instance, the idea of an atom was first discussed in the Vaisheshika philosophy by Kaṇāda¹ centuries before Common Era, and yet it was only in the 19th century after Common Era that a man by the name of John Dalton proved the existence. This discovery does not imply that atoms did not exist prior to the 19th century; it existed. It is possible that most things that we deny due to the lack of evidence can be existing phenomena waiting to be discovered.

When an argument cannot countered, it is an excellent tactic to place the burden of proof of that argument on the other side. However, if you are arguing to edify the subject or to arrive at the truth, you must make your argument and substantiate it rather than passing the burden of proof. For instance, if someone says there is an invisible monkey in this room, the burden of proof is indeed on that person. In the event that he cannot prove it, that argument becomes invalid, unacceptable or inadmissible. However, proving that there is no invisible monkey will make the case for the other side stronger. And such difficult yet logically sensible objections or counter arguments must be pursued by thinking out of the box.

Monkeys are physical entities that we either identify with our vision, other senses or combination of them. If the monkey is invisible, how do you know it is a monkey in the first place? If you saw a monkey going invisible, how do you know that the invisible monkey is still there in the room, which is an essential premise to the statement? Or that if the invisible monkey is still a monkey and has not transformed into anything else given the fact that the monkey already posses super natural powers since it went invisible. Such questions invalidate the premise of the invisible monkey itself. And if the premise itself is invalid, you cannot attempt an exploration of truth.

Proofs can be empirical, logical, statistical or of any other kind that can help establish the truth. Empirical proofs are often irrefutable but only few phenomenon can be empirically proven or disproven. With such limitations, logical and statistical² proofs can help to establish existences or non-existences.

May it be noted that science and logic cannot yet explain, prove or disprove everything³. But this must not stop us from using science and logic to discover proofs and evidences. Whatever science and logic can explain, must not be discarded. As for what they cannot explain, why conclude on such matters? Let it remain undiscovered so that people continue the quest to discover it.

When scientific and logical evidences are unavailable, anecdotal evidences can be considered so long as their conclusions are sensible. Anecdotal evidences are evidences rooting from our logical deduction itself: leaves are green because we see it green. It is just that cognitive heuristics and biases influence our conclusion from anecdotal evidences and makes it unreliable.

When arguing, be consistent with your standards and principles as much as you can be. 2+2 can be 4, 5 or something else depending on your outlook. Whatever it is, it has to be consistent in all identical events. 2+2 can't be 5 when you are to be being paid, or 3 when you are to pay, or 4 when you are not a benefactor at all. One shouldn't change standards for convenience, favourable outcome or to simply win an argument.

Never be arrogant when cornered with tough questions. There are no places for arguments like "my wish", "my choice" and "my right" in conversations discussing why the choice was made. Such arguments defeat the very purpose of discussing it. They must be used only when you are being prosecuted or punished for the legal choices made; or when you pay a hefty price such as time for a discussion you didn't sign up for — such as religious proselytism.

Never quote another person to justify your argument because the context of the quote is different. Winning lies in the truth of the argument and we arrive at truth through reasoning. Therefore, each argument must be substantiated using rationale.

Always substantiate your objection or claim. If you are unable to do so, you are arguing defensively just to win, not in the interest of the truth. Never refrain from explaining your statement saying that others won't understand it. To say so, you must have already explained it to a bewildered audience first or the audience must be intellectually challenged. Otherwise, you are just too afraid to explain or hasn't understood your own objection.

Do not retreat from the argument saying that it is impossible to argue with whoever it is. This focuses the reason on the counterpart's alleged incompetence rather than the merit of your argument. Remember that one cannot argue only in two circumstances: when he is not allowed to speak and when he really does not have anything substantiate to counter the other side.

It is preferable to avoid making your arguments with those who confuses it for quarrelling. Else, you risk a reputation of quarreler. Such confusions rampant on online communities because texts doesn't convey the tone or emotions even if you complement them with emojis. Your texts are read with the intonation and emotional content that the readers thinks that you are in. There is a saying about texting that it is the perfect way to misrepresent what you mean and misread what others meant. Remember that.

It is also preferable to avoid arguing with those who confuses respect for agreement with their positions. Such confusions are largely seen among the elderly or seniors in a group. They just can't handle the youngs and juniors pointing out flaws in their judgements.

If the stakes are high and it is necessary to make your arguments in such cases, make it tactically.

Never confuse correlation for causation — whether making a point or analysing your counterpart's point. Often, the biggest and stupidest mistake done in trying to solve a problem is to imply correlation for causation.

Evaluate who you are arguing with. There are those who argue to discuss and discover the truth, and others who argue just to win with no regard to the truth. If you are arguing with the latter, avoid arguing in the first place. They do not know to argue; they only quarrel. Nor can they stand you arguing and demolishing their points. They'll call you disrespectful or a proud prick who thinks to know everything. Some even go as far as attacking your character to defend themselves: generally referred to as ad hominem.

Don't be bothered about sides. Sides are natural in any argument, but they take lesser significance because no matter which side one is, when objective and critical thinking are applied, the arguer will eventually come to the side of truth, and truth is all that matters in an argument.